Powerful Men Talk More, Powerful Women Don't Because It Damages Their Likeability, Power, and Effectiveness

The depths of societies ingrained sexism -- and the degree to which successful women understand it is a fact of life that requires constant vigalance and adjustment -- never ceases to amaze and trouble me. A new study in the Administrative Science Quarterly (Volume 56, pages 622-641) by Yale faculty member Victoria L. Brescoll presents a trio of studies that examine gender, power, and volubility (talking time). The headline above contains the upshot. Here are some details:

1. In a study of United States senators (using data from 2005 and 2007), more powerful male senators talked quite a bit more on the senate floor than less powerful male senators. But there were no significant differences between how much powerful female senators talked compared to less powerful female senators.

2. This finding was replicated in a controlled experiment -- again, more powerful men talked more, more powerful women didn't. Additional analyses suggested that powerful women hesitated to talk more because they were concerned about "potential backlash," that they would be seen as less likable, "out of line," domineering, too controlling, would lose power, and be less effective.

3. These fears of backlash were confirmed in a third study. The basic set-up was that research subjects were asked to assess hypothetical male and female CEO candidates --one who tends to express opinions in meetings and the other who tends to keep opinions to him/herself. The effects -- the ratings by both male and female subjects -- were troubling. The talkative male CEO candidate was rated as more suitable for leadership than the less talkative one on measures including whether or not the person should be hired, is entitled to power, and competence. BUT for the female CEO, the exact opposite pattern was seen. The female CEO candidate who withheld their opinions were rated more highly than the female candidate who tended to express their opinions.

Pretty disturbing, huh? But it does show that the paths to power for women and men are quite different. The blabber mouth approach works for guys, but backfires on women.

The question is -- what can be done about this problem? Certainly a bit of self-awareness is in order, but I do wonder if there are ways to dampen or reverse these effects by developing organizational cultures -- through employee selection, socialization, rewards, and punishments -- in the right way. There are some organizations I work with where more talkative and opinionated women do seem to get ahead, and others where the women who get ahead learn to talk less.

In any event, powerful women are often quite adept at finding ways to press their opinions without increasing their talking time. One trick I have seen is that they feed their opinions and evidence to talkative male colleagues "backstage" and convince these guys to present such opinions and evidence as their own in meetings.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kevin

There are always alternative explanations, but note that this research did many things to rule out alternative explanations. The finding about Senators ruled out the time ordering explanation, and the lab studies, which control causality with random assignment, further ruled it out. This journal reject over 90% of the papers rejected to it because they lack sufficient rigor and even by the standards of this publication, these findings are robust. Your umbrella example is red herring. That and many other alternative explanations are ruled out. Perhaps you don't just don't like the finding. There is lots of evidence -- from research on confirmation bias -- that people reject findings that clash with their beliefs regardless of the rigor of those findings. Yes this research may be disproven by future studies, but it is more rigorous than any we have on similar subjects.

A study in the U.K. found that 75% of people were carrying their umbrellas on days when it was raining. Therefore the study concluded that umbrellas cause rain, and recommended a ban on umbrellas in the UK to improve the weather...

Obviously, that's a bogus study. One of the dangers of studies is that they provide CORRELATIONS, but not necessarily any causal information about the reason for those correlations.

For example, this study states the (presumedly accurate) fact that women who talk more are not seen as more powerful, like men. However the reason ascribed to that is completely subjective and without any scientific merit. Let me pose an alternate theory - one that's equally subjective, but perhaps that shows another reason for this difference.

First of all, I pose the premise that men and women are different. (On a subjective level I propose that this is a good thing, and that we should embrace, rather than trying to quash these differences. But I digress.) In fact, studies have shown that women talk 3 times as much as men. (This study is in question and recently rebutted, see here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11762186. I question both studies.)

Certainly, both from colloquial and scientific evidence, men and women communicate DIFFERENTLY. In particular, our brains are wired differently. I would claim that men who communicate more are often perceived to be more powerful because they are asserting a skill that most men lack.

On the other hand, women who talk a lot may be perceived as more chatty and superficial - and those women who communicate in a more direct and focused manner would be seen as more powerful.

I also believe that men and women are naturally better at different types of communication.

None of this EXPLANATION of the results of the study is any more valid than the preparers' explanations. But it points out the danger of studies - the reason behind the result is not always obvious, and is subject to the scientists' bias.

I think this bias was very much at play in how a lot of people reacted in a negative way to Sarah Palin in 2008. She seems to have been hated by many not just for her opinions, but mostly because she was bold, direct and opinionated. I actually liked those things about her.

@vnona: I too have found this to be true in a variety of settings. I have spoke up in meetings and felt the disapproving glare of several other attendees who felt I should be silent because I was new or I was only there as window dressing. There is definitely a risk to being an assertive leader if you are a woman. Contrary to some recent articles, the risk is increased if you are a minority even if the audience is other minorities or mixed.

Much appreciate this post, Bob. It's the elephant in the room that periodically gets some air time, but never enough to have the in-depth and honest conversations that are required for meaningful change. I've only recently begun shifting my own behavior along these lines, thanks to the awareness I gained by listening to Sheryl Sandberg's Dec 2010 TED talk - www.bit.ly/K6Z9ly.

I hadn't planned on commenting about your post, but I just made a discovery that propelled me to write. I made a list of my favorite bloggers to include on my website and was surprised to find that they are all male. I'm sure I've been overlooking important and provocative female business voices. But the fact that I have to seek them out is troubling and perhaps symptomatic of the issue you've raised (and perhaps my own bias?)

I also noticed that, so far, only one man has commented about your post. That, too, may be telling. Yes, it's awkward and the PC era we seem to be stuck in doesn't help. But we need to bust through our discomfort and start addressing this issue head-on. We owe it to the young men and women who are entering the workforce with the greatest power to effect change. Habits are tough to break, but we clearly need to create new habits for communicating, listening, and viewing those who express opinions. It's not easy, but I'm working on mine.

I learned at a workshop that men hear women's voices in the same place of their brain that listens to music. So it is more the tone than what we are saying. I work more on the tone of my voice melodic and metered, but keep my opinions and words just as strong and honest. As long as I don't get screechy, I notice that men listen. I wonder if it isn't more biological than sexist. I find that I also can't listen to women who have a nagging, harsh tone or quality to their voice. I'll bet their are women CEO's and senators who have mastered their tone to keep men's ears open and still lead with their words and ideas.

The only answer is to keep talking. The idea that one should have to "navigate" this to be successful is just more bullsh*t. If we, as women, continue to "navigate" we will never rise above. I'd rather fail knowing it is their ignorance that kept me down, than rise feeding their egos by "feeding them my ideas behind the scenes". That isn't power dear, that's self deprication guised as "feminine wile", feminine wile is accepted because it props up the male ego. Enough already. Be yourself. Speak your mind. Truth is truth. It will be heard eventually.

This is an issue that needs to be addressed from the earliest age. Research in the field of education supports that male students are allowed more uninterrupted time in the classroom to answer questions or formulate opinions than female students are. This unfortunately continues through graduate level education and into the business world. Until we can uncouple the ideas of gender and value we are not going to be able to change this cultural ill. It has to start early and be consistently modeled that all individuals are of value, and there have to be consequences in place to prevent the systematic devaluation of individuals based on their gender. "Well behaved women seldom make history."

Yup, and yup. Thanks for admitting it, at least. That's more than a lot of people do. And as long as people delude themselves that equality has already happened, they deny very real subliminal biases.

As an individual, I'm a big advocate of using humor (which arises precisely from violating social expectations); not that's a bulletproof strategy, but it's certainly helped me get my opinion heard - and look, for example, at how well it's served Elena Kagan.

You're naming something very important. The rules are different. When on stage, I get tweets from women that call me "arrogant" and from men that call me "confident". It's a bias that runs deep that women shouldn't brag or boast or even direct. But of course if you don't share what you're accomplishing, with your most passionate voice and the direction you think is right for others to follow, you're not leading.